Daily Caller columnist Yates Walker is frustrated at the conservative hand-wringing over Mitt Romney's “electability.” As he sees it, the whole idea of “electability” is just a ruse concocted by the media that is intended to damage Republican candidates:

The electability question is a liberal media con. It is posed only when discussing Republicans. And it is posed often. The purpose of the question is to cast doubt on conservative candidates and, ultimately, keep them out of office.

And, tragically, it works.

It shouldn't be surprising that Walker finds questions of electability to be a pernicious conspiracy, given that he worked for Christine O'Donnell's 2010 Senate campaign, which was a master class on the dangers of baggage-laden candidacies. To wit: Walker himself gained a small amount of notoriety for floating the ugly rumor that O'Donnell's primary opponent, Mike Castle, was having a gay affair (he had quit the campaign at that point and was working for a pro-O'Donnell outside group, from which he was subsequently fired).

Walker's theorizing on “electability” earned an approving tweet from Erick Erickson, so it's likely we'll see this theme repeated elsewhere. And that's as good a reason as any to examine the evidence for the “electability” media conspiracy, such as it exists.

According to Walker, no one ever questioned the “electability” of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries, even though the “list of potential political liabilities for Hillary and Barack could go on for days.” (His “liabilities” list consists mainly of the standard talk-radio jabs, such as Obama's “Marxist radical” mother and Clinton being “not attractive.”) Despite all this, Walker argues, "electability wasn't an issue for them."

Anyone who actually paid attention to the 2008 Democratic primaries knows this is the complete opposite of what happened. “Electability” was the theme of 2008. Here's a not-at-all exhaustive list of “liberal media” outlets and journalists that contributed to the obsessive coverage of the two Democrats' respective “electability” during the 2008 campaign.

The New York Times: "Clinton and Obama Each Stress Electability"

USA Today: "Poll: Obama now seen as most electable"

NBC: "Obama: Electability concerns?"

CNN: "Obama hits Clinton on electability"

Time magazine: "Obama's 'Electability' Code for Race?"

The Chicago Tribune: "Clinton changes course on Obama's electability"

The Boston Globe: "Clinton, Obama trade jabs on electability, honesty"

The New Republic: "Obama's Electability"

Nick Kristof: "Who Is More Electable?"

None of this is to say that “electability” is a concept worth defending. In many ways it's just campaign speak and too often serves as a crutch for political analysts who are unwilling to explore real issues. But casting it as a media plot reserved solely for Republicans is laughable.